Hi. Welcome to Epiblast! The name is partly inspired by PZ Myers famous blog, Pharyngula partly by the fact that the epiblast, a simple tissue in a developing embryo (labelled 5), gives rise, eventually, to virtually everything inside our body. It's a metaphor for how some of our simple, fundamental ideas vastly affect the other aspects of our life. This blog covers my interests; usually science, medicine, atheism, religion. I might sneak in a bit of philosophy or magic if I feel like it. I warn you, the discussion gets uncomfortable and I come to conclusions which are unconventional, maybe contradictory to yours. Don't go crying to someone if you are offended.

I spent the whole of yesterday hanging out with humanists, non-believers and liberal religious folk. I found people just like myself and it was awfully fun. And I realised how silly labels are. "Hindu Atheist" is a such a joke.

Both part one and part two.

Atheist is one of those labels which is defined by what it is not. ( Fun fact: Recall that the definition of maya, loosely illusion, is ya ma sa maya. That which is not is maya). Imagine going around calling yourself a-tooth-fairy-ist. Or Introducing yourself, "Hi! I'm an azeusist!" It sounds downright silly (actually azeusist sounds like a really cool cult). Yet I think it's justified to use it and I use it because a) I think it sounds cool b) it represents rebellion c) people need to fit you into the social map that's in their head d) its a starting point for discussion and e) because people around you look at the world with a religious lens, it is important to tell them you've thrown those away.

From my experience, I have noticed that the word atheist has connotations of education, rationality, scientific understanding but of course (from the religious perspective) a taint of myopia. Though not all of them are applicable, people in the mission (which I am part of) make it sound like a big deal that Swami Chinmayananda was an atheist. Some of his disciples (now Swami's themselves) were atheists. (Though it is known that some of them actually hated science in school =P ). You would also notice that my friend commented in her reply "I would say ur definition (in red above) of an atheist is rather superficial, and would make any true Advaitin an Atheist, incl Sri Shankara himself. Pls come up with a tighter definition. There is rather more to atheism than a mere non belief of existence of deities".

Actually non-belief is all that is implied by the word Atheist. Some atheists are scientific materialists(i.e reject the supernatural), some are buddhist, secular humanist, jains and some just don't care. Which makes it sound like another kind of Hinduism. My response to that, "Embrace the label, Advaitins! You're atheists too" And I am not the only one to say this. Prabhupada, the founder of ISKCON has this to say about Advaita "but Shankara philosophy is dangerous atheism because he is accepting Vedanta, but he is preaching atheism. He’s accepting… Under the shelter of Vedanta, he’s preaching atheism. So therefore they are more dangerous.” There you go.

What about the Hindu part?

That is only a vague label too. Scholars have gone back and forth about what it means to be a hindu and thus almost every statement that people have come up, feels incomplete upon deeper analysis. Though in itself very encompassing, hindu gurus have tried to get hindus to transcend the label as well. Paramhansa Yogananda once remarked "I am neither a Hindu nor an American. Humanity is my race, and no one on earth can make me feel otherwise. Prejudice and exclusiveness are so childish. We are here for just a little while and then whisked away." Of course he went on to the whole "Children of God" business but I think we can all agree with the spirit of the former statement.

I think that's all I have to say about labels. I totally appreciate all the feedback my reader's have given me. Keep the comments coming.